Editing “Generic” Footnotes (by Source)
Posted: 23 Feb 2021 19:52
This is somewhat an extension of several earlier threads, but those discussions went elsewhere, so I start a new question…
As an “importee” with years of composed data, all of my Sources are ‘generic sources’. Even the very few ‘templated’ sources I had before import to FH came over as generic.
That’s fine with me; it works well. Over the years, I had developed self-imposed data entry rules, and all Sources of a given type were created consistently, making the best use of the available fields that I can. And all Citations of a given Source are entered (mostly) consistently. (btw, I’m a ‘lumper’.)
I have no real need or desire to use Source Templates.
But… there are a few cases (by Source) where I want/need to customize the Footnote(s)/Biblio sentences for different “Author”, “Title” or “Publication info” format, or to include some other or different citation-specific data - as opposed to the generic footnote (which works well for the vast majority of my sources).
[Back Story: In my previous life (FTM), I was able to do this on a by-citation basis. FTM exported these as “_FOOT” tags. The FH import process moved/appended these to Local Notes – where they served no use. I went back to the FTM GEDCOM and deleted them before re-importing.]
My best (or only?) idea of how to do this, would be to create a Custom Source Template (which would be a copy/clone of the generic), and edit its Footnote sentences. And then (somehow?) apply that to the source of interest.
But how would I do that?
In Tools>Source Template Definitions the “generic” isn’t there, so how would I clone it? Otherwise, would I just create a new one, or clone & modify the closest thing (? Essentials, Book)? I assume it would have to have the same data fields as the Generic.
Could I then create a “new” Source using this custom template and Merge the “original” Source to move all the Citations? Or just Source Records>right click Source>Add Template? Would they pick up the “new” footnote?
Or would this really require a plugin?
I should probably just try this in a test database, but I hope the smart ones here might better guide me (or warn me).
- rob
As an “importee” with years of composed data, all of my Sources are ‘generic sources’. Even the very few ‘templated’ sources I had before import to FH came over as generic.
That’s fine with me; it works well. Over the years, I had developed self-imposed data entry rules, and all Sources of a given type were created consistently, making the best use of the available fields that I can. And all Citations of a given Source are entered (mostly) consistently. (btw, I’m a ‘lumper’.)
I have no real need or desire to use Source Templates.
But… there are a few cases (by Source) where I want/need to customize the Footnote(s)/Biblio sentences for different “Author”, “Title” or “Publication info” format, or to include some other or different citation-specific data - as opposed to the generic footnote (which works well for the vast majority of my sources).
[Back Story: In my previous life (FTM), I was able to do this on a by-citation basis. FTM exported these as “_FOOT” tags. The FH import process moved/appended these to Local Notes – where they served no use. I went back to the FTM GEDCOM and deleted them before re-importing.]
My best (or only?) idea of how to do this, would be to create a Custom Source Template (which would be a copy/clone of the generic), and edit its Footnote sentences. And then (somehow?) apply that to the source of interest.
But how would I do that?
In Tools>Source Template Definitions the “generic” isn’t there, so how would I clone it? Otherwise, would I just create a new one, or clone & modify the closest thing (? Essentials, Book)? I assume it would have to have the same data fields as the Generic.
Could I then create a “new” Source using this custom template and Merge the “original” Source to move all the Citations? Or just Source Records>right click Source>Add Template? Would they pick up the “new” footnote?
Or would this really require a plugin?
I should probably just try this in a test database, but I hope the smart ones here might better guide me (or warn me).
- rob